You are not connected. Please login or register

Global Warming, hoax?

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

1 Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:18 pm

T@D

avatar
*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
First topic message reminder :

Global warming. It's a serious trend, that if addressed and taken care of has been proven to be one of the proven end-all's to the world as we know it..... right?


BULLSHIT. It's a bout time these asshats were exposed for that they truely are...... liars. All of you that believe in this global warming movement, you might wanna take a seat on this one..

Al Gore... the front runner in this global warming BS, making a movie, winning awards, being held as this supreme humanitarian is full of shit. All of these process and events to raise money, government grants, tax dollars spent were wasted to fix a problem that dosent even exist. And whats worse is.... they have known for yearssssssss that it didn't exist, but they kept the "show on the road" any way.

Basically what has happened is some hacker has hacked email accounts and has made public thousands of emails of scientists and even new media members admitting to changing result numbers to continue to back their "proof" of global warming.

So I dont use to much info from the news report... Ill post it for you all to read...

With the UN's International Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen only weeks away, recent revelations have thrown a monkey wrench in the plans of global warming activists to implement a worldwide treaty which would impose costly sanctions on the industrialized west and effect a massive wealth transfer to developing nations. The Obama administration had appeared willing to sign away a great deal of U..S sovereignty and transfer significant power over U.S. citizens to an unelected international bureaucracy, but the latest news may make it impossible to use anthropogenic global warming as a pretext for expanding the power of the administration's transnational socialist allies.

It started with the reluctant acknowledgment by many climatologists that despite past opposition, the claims of skeptics that the Earth has actually been cooling were essentially true. German scientists from the Liebnitz Institute for Marine Studies and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology led the way, admitting that "global warming is taking a break," referring to the increasingly widespread acknowledgment that for the last decade temperatures have remained stable and that over the last 40 years the level of overall warming is considerably lower than previously claimed.

Even "Global Warming Central" at Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research had to admit that their past figures were suspect and that rather than a 0.2% temperature increase over the past decade their adjusted figures suggested only a 0.07% temperature increase during that period. Hadley has always been a leading source for global warming activism and their computer models and data analysis techniques are being looked at with increasing skepticism as they remain one of the few climate research groups still reporting any warming at all over the last 10 years.

This week Hadley became the center of a storm of controversy over "climategate" when a hacker accessed their internal network and made over a thousand emails and documents public, revealing what looks like a concerted effort to misrepresent the results of their research, manufacture bogus data, suppress data, tweak models to produce desired results, and carry out smear campaigns against climate change skeptics. As the story unfolds some are describing it as one of the greatest scientific scandals of the modern era. As the scandal has unfolded the reputations of some of the most prominent climate scientists have been placed in doubt and ties have been exposed to journalists and media outlets who seem to have been complicit in the conspiracy.

Reports from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change which were used as the basis for hysteria about global warming were based primarily on data processed by Hadley scientists, data which has now been acknowledged to be incorrect by the authors as well as being exposed as possibly fraudulent. It seems possible that a cabal of politically motivated scientists directly manipulated the IPCC to produce reports based on bogus data to advance a globalist agenda.

Even former Vice President Al Gore, who has filled the role of High Priest for the global warming movement, admitted earlier this month that the science was not entirely convincing, that C02 probably did not cause the global warming he had previously claimed, and that the fight against pollution was more a spiritual than scientific one.

President Obama and other world leaders have been backing away from full support for UN climate regulation plans and it looks like the Copenhagen conference may turn into a debate over the legitimacy of global warming theory rather than the triumphant enshrining of a massive UN power grab as originally intended. With the new revelations of fraud and error fueling more widespread skepticism, Europeans have joined Americans in their growing opposition to draconian economic restrictions based on a suspect and politically-driven climate change theory. If President Obama does go to Copenhagen he may find himself in the middle of a firestorm of controversy which he and his party cannot afford going into an election year.


Suck on that fuckers. Wasting the worlds money when we have REAL problems that need to be addressed. A pathetic reminder that noone "cares" truely from the higher levels about me, or you, or the world.... it's all about money. Whats really sad is after finding this EXTREME news out... I had to search for it. This should be front page news EVERYWHERE... but it's not. Why? Cause theres no money in it if dis-proven. The media, government, and part of the science community can piss off.


You say "go green" I say "go fuck yourself"


__________________________________________________________________________________________




"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.... Faith is the denial of observation so that beliefs can be preserved."


*{CHS}* Putch: im bringing sexxy back
*pWp*T@D*: I brought it back. But you are more then welcomed to fluff it.

<-H$*SoStoned / Pillies -: whos your quake fun person of the year taddie bear?!?!??!
*pWp*T@D*: me... dipshit.
*pWp*T@D*: Im the fun
.
http://www.pwpclan.org

26 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:05 pm

T@D


*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
Exactly what Ex said. You can post all the findings you want but it has been proven that those "facts" are not accurate. Even worse then that, they were completely made up.

The information given the past 40 years on "global warming" coming from scientists is just as reliable as if the information came from a group of cab drivers. It has no scientific basis and even though these "scientists" now have said "well, maybe we were wrong".... they still are asking for money... to fix this non-existent problem.

There is no man-made global warming. There is strictly earths evolution.

Remember the "ice age"? Where's that at now?

http://www.pwpclan.org

27 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:26 am

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
But where?! Who proved it? You realize the initial article you posted that you also didn't link to was written by a person who designs fonts for a living. Fonts.


Call me crazy but I'm going to stick with what the scientists and experts agree on instead of what a font guy or conspiracy nut says.


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

28 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:16 pm

T@D

avatar
*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
Global warming is strictly a catalyst to promote the “Global CO2 Tax.” I think this tax will be implemented relativity soon causing us, and other countries around the world, to pay taxes if we continue to use fossil fuels..... which is something that we can not change in my lifetime, nor my kids lifetime.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17916


Some light reading.


__________________________________________________________________________________________




"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.... Faith is the denial of observation so that beliefs can be preserved."


*{CHS}* Putch: im bringing sexxy back
*pWp*T@D*: I brought it back. But you are more then welcomed to fluff it.

<-H$*SoStoned / Pillies -: whos your quake fun person of the year taddie bear?!?!??!
*pWp*T@D*: me... dipshit.
*pWp*T@D*: Im the fun
.
http://www.pwpclan.org

29 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:24 pm

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
But, you know, that's the same paper that once claimed the mob did 9/11. I'm linking to that article because it is also somewhat related to the topic.

Seriously, conspiracy theorists have been wrong about every single time they claim something. I remember one of them who also happens to play quake advising people to buy all the gold they could before the recession, as the dollar was to be discontinued and replaced by a new currency by 2009, and that a police state was inminent.

I just have trouble believing a newspaper that declares itself to have a conservative bias right in the main website, and that features conspiracy theories (the 9/11 article was written by the founder of the paper, Judi Leod) over scientists and peer reviewed journals.

Bring me a scientific journal that proves what you're preaching and I'll consider believing it. In the meantime, here are some that prove AGW:


(Abstract, as I don't have full access on ProQuest)

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 presents the most complete and authoritative assessment of the status of scientific knowledge on all aspects of climate change. This paper presents an updated assessment of the risks from anthropogenic climate change, based on a comprehensive review of the pertinent scientific literature published since finalisation of the AR4. Many risks are now assessed as stronger than in the AR4, including the risk of large sea-level rise already in the current century, the amplification of global warming due to biological and geological carbon-cycle feedbacks, a large magnitude of "committed warming" currently concealed by a strong aerosol mask, substantial increases in climate variability and extreme weather events, and the risks to marine ecosystems from climate change and ocean acidification. Some topics remain the subject of intense scientific debate, such as past and future changes in tropical cyclone activity and the risk of large-scale Amazon forest dieback. The rise in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations has accelerated recently, and it is expected to accelerate further in the absence of targeted policy interventions. Taken together, these findings point to an increased urgency of implementing mitigation policies as well as comprehensive and equitable adaptation policies.

Bolded the part where it said that the natural cycles merely aided global warming, but do not overthrow it.

Füssel, H.. "An updated assessment of the risks from climate change based on research published since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. " Climatic Change 97.3-4 (2009): 469. Academic Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.



READ THIS


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

30 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:10 pm

eXcel


I Just got here!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

there you can find some or all the emails hacked
if you think that what tad posted was made on suppositions how do you know that the article you read wasnt either.. not if you really understand how the climate works and the influence of the gases released have on the atmosphere

please read then and make your own opinion!

31 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:24 pm

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
I AM reading, I just happen to be reading from reputable, peer-reviewed sources.

Regarding those emails:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

32 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:28 pm

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Don't use sources from bloggers and political commentators... stick to the scientists. All you guys have managed to come up with come from said sources. Climate change is a scientific phenomenon, and can only be discussed in scientific terms.


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

33 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:34 pm

eXcel


I Just got here!
read the emails... not what he says ...

click on the blue numbers..

34 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:35 pm

eXcel


I Just got here!
From: "Graham F Haughton"
To: "Phil Jones"
Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!'

Graham


heres one email Smile

35 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:42 pm

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
What those emails show is a series of unethical and unsciencelike events that these people took part in. Nothing more. It does not bring down years and years of research of the scientific community as a whole and the whole climate change hypothesis.

Perhaps the most worrisome part of this incident is that it could easily leave the public wondering about the science of human-induced global warming. But do the potentially unethical acts implied by these e-mails invalidate the hypothesis that human output of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, creates a serious risk of rapid climate change? No.

Outspoken critics often portray climate science as a house of cards, built on a shaky edifice of limited data and broad suppositions. However, it's more realistic to think of the science as a deck of cards, spread out, face up. Some data and interpretations of those data are more certain than others, of course. But pulling out one or two interpretations, or the results of a few scientists, does not change the overall picture. Take away two or three cards, and there are still 49 or 50 cards facing you.

The "house of cards" view results partly from the representation of human-induced climate change in opinion polls and in the press, which split the debate into "believers" and "skeptics." This dichotomy is misleading for many reasons, particularly because it implies that those who are concerned about human-induced climate change believe every single claim made by every scientist on this topic, in the way that some fundamentalists claim to believe in the literal truth of every word in a religious text. Similarly, it implies that all skeptics doubt the entire theory.

In fact, most scientists are skeptics, to one extent or another, about climate science and almost everything else. Of course, there are a few who actually believe with complete certainty that they are right, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. These folks can't conceive of the possibility that they could be mistaken; they really are like religious zealots. However, the genuine scientific skeptics greatly outnumber the true believers, and in most scientific debates the skeptics prevail ... after a while.


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

36 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:44 pm

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
There may be other factors, not yet accounted for, which could more or less suddenly emerge, and offset some or all of the future CO2 increase, the warming, the melting and the acidification that are predicted from these simple, well-known observations and the inferences and projections from models based on these observations. That's the nature of science in general. It is really almost impossible to prove beyond all doubt that nothing important is missing from a theory. As a trail sign in Yosemite used to say, "Caution, unknown hazards may exist." In addition, the ecological, economic and social consequences of global warming are also uncertain, adding another layer of unpredictability to this whole scenario.

Most scientists know and acknowledge these uncertainties, and reason as follows. We're in an unprecedented situation, with regard to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate at which it is rising. Because this is unprecedented, we are not sure what is going to happen. But global warming is very likely, and reasonably probable outcomes could be fatal. Ignoring it would be like Russian roulette. Want to play? I do not.

From http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1

A very good read if you're interested in the topic.


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

37 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:51 pm

eXcel


I Just got here!
yea but those emails are from a server at the best climate research center Smile

38 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:15 pm

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
I take it you didn't read anything I linked to, then. This is not discussion anymore, you're just repeating yourself and disregarding any arguments that contradict yours.

The emails did not prove anything. They were just discussing ways to present the data, the data was not modified! It is unethical, yes, but it does not disprove anything.

Take a look at the mayor partisans of the anti AGW... petrol companies and the alike, just spreading baseless fear, uncertainty and doubt to muddle the real scientific research that is widely accepted by the scientific community.

I'm locking this thread. If anyone can find one reliable, scientific, and expert source on the field backing up the claims, PM me and I'l reopen it for discussion. This isn't debate anymore, it's just throwing the same rocks back at each other.


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

39 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:08 am

T@D

avatar
*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
Here you go Pornfish. Info from Nasa and Harvard. Info from nasa shows the US has gone up 1 degree in 29 years..... yet the higher/lfar lower regions have gone up substantually more. Oddly, the US is the greatest consumer of the problems that they are attributing to global warming.

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year." So let me understand this properly. 2005 had the highest readings in 100 years, except almost being an exact match to 1998. So, in 1998 they were high... obviously were lower 1999 - 2004. Then in 2005 they rise again, but then go lower 2006 - 2008? So basically global warming chooses to only rear it's ugly head every so often? I know I know... El Niño. And I guess fossil fuels are to blame for that as well. There is NO proof of a constant rise in temperature due to emissions of fossil fuels. None.

Even Harvard, another reputable institution, was quoted in saying "Long-term (50 to 100 years) and short-term (10 to 30 years) global and hemispheric trends of temperature have an inherent unknown error due to incomplete and nonrandom spatial sampling."

"The Modern Warm Period

The Average Earth surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) "Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century" [7]

According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles). Some scientists, including Richard Lindzen of MIT, Sallie Baliunas of Harvard and Fred Singer (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

[6] http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
[7] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K



So you asked "who". I posted Nasa's info, although they still back global warming, are clear that they are not really 'sure' the reasons/effects/trends. A scientist from MIT and Harvard. I also included the link to a post from other Harvard "folk" posted using their site saying they also believe the data was/is tainted...... even in 1994.

This is a guessing game clouded with future taxes.


Unlocked for more info.


__________________________________________________________________________________________




"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.... Faith is the denial of observation so that beliefs can be preserved."


*{CHS}* Putch: im bringing sexxy back
*pWp*T@D*: I brought it back. But you are more then welcomed to fluff it.

<-H$*SoStoned / Pillies -: whos your quake fun person of the year taddie bear?!?!??!
*pWp*T@D*: me... dipshit.
*pWp*T@D*: Im the fun
.
http://www.pwpclan.org

40 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:40 am

T@D

avatar
*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
I also have to add. You seem to be a believer in Global Warming, and thats fine. I see nothing wrong with treating it as a personal and moral decision to "do your part".

But. If the "evidence" is so conclusive, why is there a debate? There has been a debate for many many years. Why? Because the "results" are arguable. Nothing when it comes to global warming trends/facts/information has ever been conclusive..... allowing for the possibility that the other side is correct.

You have claimed you prefer to believe the scientists..... then do, but you only are going to look at one side of the coin?


__________________________________________________________________________________________




"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.... Faith is the denial of observation so that beliefs can be preserved."


*{CHS}* Putch: im bringing sexxy back
*pWp*T@D*: I brought it back. But you are more then welcomed to fluff it.

<-H$*SoStoned / Pillies -: whos your quake fun person of the year taddie bear?!?!??!
*pWp*T@D*: me... dipshit.
*pWp*T@D*: Im the fun
.
http://www.pwpclan.org

41 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:51 am

TheRustySpoon

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
T@D wrote:

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year." So let me understand this properly. 2005 had the highest readings in 100 years, except almost being an exact match to 1998. So, in 1998 they were high... obviously were lower 1999 - 2004. Then in 2005 they rise again, but then go lower 2006 - 2008? So basically global warming chooses to only rear it's ugly head every so often? I know I know... El Niño. And I guess fossil fuels are to blame for that as well. There is NO proof of a constant rise in temperature due to emissions of fossil fuels. None.


"So let me understand this properly. 2005 had the highest readings in 100 years, except almost being an exact match to 1998. So, in 1998 they were high... obviously were lower 1999 - 2004. Then in 2005 they rise again, but then go lower 2006 - 2008?"

I have to study for exams so ill make this short >_< ill assume u were taling about http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Actually no, if you look at the date of the article at the bottom:

"This 2005 summation was first posted on-line Dec. 15, 2005, and discussed the 2005 meteorological year (December-November). Minor revisions were made on Jan. 12, 2006, so that it instead discussed the 2005 calendar year." So there is nothing about 06-08

42 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:11 am

T@D

avatar
*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
Sorry then, I didn't scroll. Thanks Spooner. But I can still stick with the 99-04. 5 year span. 5 years of that the number did not rise creating a new record. I find it odd that it "spikes" but then lowers if its a true science of perpetual events.


__________________________________________________________________________________________




"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.... Faith is the denial of observation so that beliefs can be preserved."


*{CHS}* Putch: im bringing sexxy back
*pWp*T@D*: I brought it back. But you are more then welcomed to fluff it.

<-H$*SoStoned / Pillies -: whos your quake fun person of the year taddie bear?!?!??!
*pWp*T@D*: me... dipshit.
*pWp*T@D*: Im the fun
.
http://www.pwpclan.org

43 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:30 am

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
So your stance is that global warming does not exist? Or is it that it does exist but it is not due to man's actions?


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

44 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:18 am

T@D

avatar
*pWp*Founder*
*pWp*Founder*
Global warming, as brought to is by the politicians, the right wing, extremists, and tree huggers.... does not exist (In my opinion). Man made global warming, that will sooner or later, increase taxes; force companies to use alternative fuels, and try to have the fossil fuels cut down 85% by 2050 (as suggested bu Al Gore) is a myth. Again, in my opinion.

The natural, untamable, change the earth is having temperature wise has basically happened pre-data..... yes, I believe in the worlds evolution. I believe the "globe is warming".... but it has nothing to do with, or at least, very little to do with anything man-made or man generated.


__________________________________________________________________________________________




"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.... Faith is the denial of observation so that beliefs can be preserved."


*{CHS}* Putch: im bringing sexxy back
*pWp*T@D*: I brought it back. But you are more then welcomed to fluff it.

<-H$*SoStoned / Pillies -: whos your quake fun person of the year taddie bear?!?!??!
*pWp*T@D*: me... dipshit.
*pWp*T@D*: Im the fun
.
http://www.pwpclan.org

45 Re: Global Warming, hoax? on Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:16 am

Pornfish

avatar
Quake III Member
Quake III Member
But so far, the respectable sources you brought to the table were mainly to put in question if the earth is warming at all, not that man's actions are warming it or not. And even those studies do not deny that man's actions are warming it up, they claim that "most likely" that is what is happening.

Science is never exact, the strongest hypothesis is the one that is backed up with the most data. Right now, the scientific community backs up global warming because it's the most plausible and reasonable hypothesis. None of them deny the natural cycles, they all acknowledge them and they are part of the hypothesis.


__________________________________________________________________________________________
"butts" -butts

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum